Large-scale multivariate multi-ancestry Interaction analyses point towards different genetic mechanisms by population and exposure.
Laville, V.; Majarian, T.; Sung, Y. J.; Feitosa, M. F.; Chasman, D.; Bentley, A. R.; Rotimi, C. N.; Cupples, A. L.; de Vries, P. S.; Brown, M. R.; Morrison, A. C.; Kraja, A. T.; Province, M.; Schwander, K.; Gauderman, J.; Rao, D.; Manning, A.; Aschard, H.
Show abstract
The CHARGE Gene-Lifestyle Interactions Working Group is a unique initiative formed to improve our understanding of the role and biological significance of gene-environment interactions in human traits and diseases. The consortium published several multi-ancestry genome-wide interaction studies (GWIS) involving up to 610,475 individuals for three lipids and four blood pressure traits while accounting for interaction effects with drinking and smoking exposures. Here we used GWIS summary statistics from these studies to decipher potential differences in genetic associations and GxE interactions across phenotype-exposure-population trios, and to derive new insights on the potential mechanistic underlying GxE through in-silico functional analyses. Our comparative analysis shows first that interaction effects likely contribute to the commonly reported ancestry-specific genetic effect in complex traits, and second, that some phenotype-exposures pairs are more likely to benefit from a greater detection power when accounting for interactions. It also highlighted a negligible correlation between main and interaction effects, providing material for future methodological development and biological discussions. We also estimated contributions to phenotypic variance, including in particular the genetic heritability conditional on the exposure, and heritability partitioned across a range of functional annotations and cell-types. In these analyses, we found multiple instances of heterogeneity of functional partitions between exposed and unexposed individuals, providing new evidence for likely exposure-specific genetic pathways. Finally, along this work we identified potential biases in methods used to jointly meta-analyses genetic and interaction effects. We performed a series of simulations to characterize these limitations and to provide the community with guideline for future GxE studies.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A novel Mendelian randomization method identifies causal relationships between gene expression and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. 96%
- Accounting for genetic effect heterogeneity in fine-mapping and improving power to detect gene-environment interactions with SharePro 95%
- Epigenome-wide association meta-analysis of DNA methylation with coffee and tea consumption 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pathway-specific polygenic scores substantially increase the discovery of gene-adiposity interactions impacting liver biomarkers 95%
- An LDLR missense variant poses high risk of familial hypercholesterolemia in 30% of Greenlanders and offers potential for early cardiovascular disease intervention 94%
- Multivariate adaptive shrinkage improves cross-population transcriptome prediction for transcriptome-wide association studies in underrepresented populations 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- ExPRSweb - An Online Repository with Polygenic Risk Scores for Common Health-related Exposures 94%
- Rare variants in long non-coding RNAs are associated with blood lipid levels in the TOPMed Whole Genome Sequencing Study 94%
- Evaluating Multi-Ancestry Genome-Wide Association Methods: Statistical Power, Population Structure, and Practical Implications 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genome-wide pleiotropy analysis identifies novel blood pressure variants and improves its polygenic risk scores 95%
- Refinement of a published gene-physical activity interaction impacting HDL-cholesterol: role of sex and lipoprotein subfractions 94%
- Study of effect modifiers of genetically predicted CETP reduction 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.